Better decisions. More thoughtful work.

The bus factor reveals work that depends on one unavailable person

Two colleagues documenting a specialist workflow together at a desk.
AI-generated photographic illustration; not documentary photography.

A team of twelve may still have only one person who knows how to complete an essential monthly task. Headcount looks healthy; continuity is fragile. The “bus factor” is a bluntly named idea used in software work to discuss how concentrated critical knowledge has become.

JetBrains Research’s Bus Factor Explorer studies this problem through software-project information. Such models are useful within their assumptions, but a contribution history is not a complete map of what people know. Applying the idea to a wider team requires conversations about actual work, not a numerical ranking of employee value.

Find the task that stops

Ask: “If the usual person were unavailable next week, which task would we struggle to complete correctly?” This keeps the discussion about a process. It avoids treating expertise as a fault or demanding that a knowledgeable colleague document everything at once.

For an illustrative team, the fragile task might be preparing a supplier payment file. A folder of instructions is a start, but someone else also needs the appropriate access, context and opportunity to practise. Documentation without permission or practice can create false reassurance.

Test one handover while help is available

  1. Choose a recurring task with a clear outcome.
  2. Have the experienced person explain the decisions, exceptions and checks.
  3. Let another authorised colleague perform the task with supervision.
  4. Record where the handover depended on knowledge that had not been written down.

Use approved access arrangements; sharing a password is not a sound substitute for giving a colleague their own authorised access. Protect confidential material while making the legitimate workflow understandable.

Recognition matters too. The expert is contributing time and judgement to reduce a team risk. Include that work in priorities rather than adding it invisibly to an already full workload.

A useful outcome is modest and observable: another person can complete a specific process and knows when to ask for help. That is stronger evidence of resilience than declaring that every task has a backup name on a spreadsheet.